It's that time....

[Poecheng]

Quoted as it bears repeating, not least as it appears to be the a rare post from someone who is more than an no-mark armchair admiral sounding off their prejudices.

I am not aware of any poster (armchair admiral or otherwise) sounding off their 'prejudices' and nor have I.

There seems to be a lack of comprehension of plain English in this thread or, worse, deliberate skewing.

Nobody at all on this thread has supported racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc views nor asked to be rescued by such persons, or even that they be protected from discipline. Nobody has supported harassment or bullying. No one has hinted at any such thing. It is a fiction to suggest otherwise.

The account you re-post is not really remarkable, though the poster thought it was. Since Blair, such views have not been acceptable in virtually all areas of polite and impolite society.

Further, if this thread is closed to non-lifeboat crew it will be a lonely place. The fact that the poster may be 'more than a no-mark armchair admiral', as you so politely put it, does not really give them an exalted position in this debate.

Whilst the rescued may not have much standing to comment on who they want to rescue them (they will no doubt be damned grateful), the contributors to the charity and the public in general (it being a charity) have a legitimate interest in how it is run. That means there will be legitimate debate in areas which are not determined already by law.

The RNLI has got a problem or two on its hands since its central organisation has adopted an internal attitude that is somewhat at odds with the rufty-tufty image it seeks to convey to the public and seems to be at odds with some of the volunteer deliverers of its core service. It is legitimate to discuss this.

 

[jordanbasset]

The problem is that we do not know the specific facts of the case to discuss it. I suspect the RNLI still feel some element of responsibility for the people dismissed and do not want to be seen highlighting specific individuals to protect both them and any victims.
But this vacuum has allowed papers such as the Daily Mail to trivialise events and make it appear as they were only sacked because of a saucy mug, for example
The RNLI has made a general statement about their response

'“The RNLI is a unique organisation,” the spokesman said. “As an emergency service, we must adhere to the very highest standards of safety and behave in a way that meets the expectations of a modern emergency responder. And as a charity, we take our ethical and legal responsibilities very seriously. The examples you have read about recently have involved serious incidents that we were duty bound to challenge.
“We do not stand volunteers down lightly. We recognise the years of dedication and the skill involved in becoming a crew member, helm or coxswain. We fully understand and respect the close bond and camaraderie of our crew and other volunteers. We know that friendly banter is a key part of this.
“But to be clear – we simply will not tolerate lifeboats being taken for joyrides in rough weather without full crew. We don’t accept that hard core, graphic pornography has any place at a lifeboat station. We will not tolerate threats of violence towards our volunteers or staff. We will not stand for bullying or aggressive behaviour.”

I assume no one here would take issue with that.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Quoted as it bears repeating, not least as it appears to be a rare post on this thread (and the other near identical ones) from someone who is more than a no-mark armchair admiral sounding off their prejudices.

I've been thinking about this, and here is ...

JumbleDuck's Theory of Heroes

It's often believed that people want to be like their heroes, but I think it is more often the case that they want their heroes to be like them. There are two reasons for this. First of all, it allows a bit of glory to be rubbed off. People like thinking that a VC winner, a football captain or a brain surgeon comes from their street, speaks their language or went to their school. I am myself rather pleased that on my father's mother's side I am descended from the lighthouse Stevensons, even though I have never built a lighthouse in my life and am unqualified to start.

The second reason is the inverse. We want our heroes to share our failings and problems, because it helps us to accept them in ourselves. At one level this is absolutely fine. We are none of us perfect, and when we see a great sailor / musician/ scientist / artist who is also depressive / diabetic / deaf / alcoholic we can feel a sense of reconciliation. However, there is dark side to this, which is when those with unpleasant character traits project them, quite without justification, on others in order to excuse things which deep down they know are inexcusable.

When someone chooses to conjure up the image of RNLI crews sitting around in the pub singing racist shanties it's almost certainly because he would otherwise feel ashamed - as he should - of his own fondness for racist shanties. "But I'm not a bad person" he can tell himself "because I expect that RNLI crews do just the same". The same goes for those who tell us that sexism and bullying are (dressed up as "banter" and "showing toughness") endemic in RNLI stations. In fact people who actually work on lifeboats tell us it's not like that at all. and I believe them, but the nasty-minded continue to project their own unpleasantness on the crews in an attempt at self-justification.

This is by no means restricted to lifeboat crews, of course. Whenever anyone tells you that thuggish, discourteous, bigoted and rude behaviour is common amongst distinguished groups and made acceptable by their distinction, they are telling you a lot more about how they would like the world to be than about how it actually is.

 

[dom]

I've been thinking about this, and here is ...

JumbleDuck's Theory of Heroes

It's often believed that people want to be like their heroes, but I think it is more often the case that they want their heroes to be like them..............

Golly, Trump falls straight out of your new theory .....not bad!

All you need now is a new twitter account + a set of silk PJs and off you go

 

[Poecheng]

However, there is dark side to this, which is when those with unpleasant character traits project them, quite without justification, on others in order to excuse things which deep down they know are inexcusable.

Agree.
And we can test whether it is unjustified projection by comparing what someone has actually said with what someone claims that they said. As the forum is in writing, this exercise is easy and it shows whether someone has subsequently amended their post.

When someone chooses to conjure up the image of RNLI crews sitting around in the pub singing racist shanties it's almost certainly because he would otherwise feel ashamed - as he should - of his own fondness for racist shanties. "But I'm not a bad person" he can tell himself "because I expect that RNLI crews do just the same".

Whilst I concede immediately it was not said in an approving way, the only person conjuring up an image of racist sea-shanties is YOU.
I never used the word racist in respect of sea-shanties; that was your invention as I have pointed out to you already. No one else has spoken of them to the best of my knowledge.
I didn't bother responding to your earlier response, but I have no knowledge of the sea shanty you mention, nor any other.
I was seeking to introduce a quite different idea that plainly shwooshed straight past you. The idea I was raising was one where sea-shanties (being an expression of one part of our historic culture) in a pub was seen as exclusionary or, in modern speak, not 'inclusive'. It was a threat of a failure to be 'inclusive' and the consequential allegation of institutional racism that I was raising. This has nothing to do with the overt racism of racist sea shanties.

In my original response to you on this topic, I pointed out that you had falsely attributed the idea of racist sea shanties to me. That you had, on that entirely false basis, gone on falsely to accuse me of being a racist because (again as you falsely claimed) I must know about such things. I told you your premise, argument and conclusion were utterly false and you should hang your head in shame at such low behaviour. You now appear to seek to repeat it even though, bizarrely, it is you (and you alone) who has identified or quoted a sea shanty which, we must assume from the context, is racist.

The same goes for those who tell us that sexism and bullying are (dressed up as "banter" and "showing toughness") endemic in RNLI stations. In fact people who actually work on lifeboats tell us it's not like that at all. and I believe them, but the nasty-minded continue to project their own unpleasantness on the crews in an attempt at self-justification.

Please provide an example where anyone has said sexism and bullying are endemic in RNLI or where someone has dismissed these (sexism and bullying) as banter or even sought to excuse them.

This is by no means restricted to lifeboat crews, of course. Whenever anyone tells you that thuggish, discourteous, bigoted and rude behaviour is common amongst distinguished groups and made acceptable by their distinction, they are telling you a lot more about how they would like the world to be than about how it actually is.

But nobody has said that on this thread at all to the best of my knowledge.
Thuggishness and being bigoted are possibly crimes - it would depend on circumstance; who seeks to excuse that?
Discourtesy and rudeness are very unlikely to be crimes and it is possible, by grouping these together, you exaggerate their social significance. They are what they are. You will be able to reflect on your own posts to see whether any of them qualify as being, at least, discourteous.

Back to where we started, we can see whether there is projection by comparison of the original source with the allegation about what was said. In your rush to occupy the moral high ground as your signalling station, your rather trip yourself up.
Just reflect (as examples) on the contents of your posts about Dylan (who, I understand, extended hospitality to you) and over the last day or three about Marine Reflections.

My genuine apologies to others for the Fred D.

 

[Resolution]

We certainly have some deep thinkers onboard this forum. Back to the simple side, last year we had a serious accident on a yacht in the Solent. The RNLI turned up in a jiffy , took charge of a scary situation and got the casualty off to hospital with skill and speed. I can never say thank you enough.

 

[JumbleDuck]

[Torrent of words deleted]

This discussion, like so many others, would go so much more interestingly and civilly if you could refrain from personalities.

Thank you.

JD

 

[JumbleDuck]

We certainly have some deep thinkers onboard this forum. Back to the simple side, last year we had a serious accident on a yacht in the Solent. The RNLI turned up in a jiffy , took charge of a scary situation and got the casualty off to hospital with skill and speed. I can never say thank you enough.

RNLI Campbeltown very kindly saved my crew's dinghy when we had a bit of an incident in the Sound of Sanda. Like you, I was (and am) extremely grateful to them. Which is why I think it is discourteous in the extreme to project boorish behaviour onto them.

 

[Sybarite]

I am sorry it is not vitriol, and I am capable of thinking out of the box, although you do not seem to have the same facility as you are constantly trying to apply inappropriate techniques and invalid comparisons.

It is irrelevant what %age of revenue is spent on boats as expenditure is determined by need, not be a specific %age. Is there any evidence that expenditure is too little? or not appropriate to need? There is also no connection between funding the pension fund and buying or building new boats. So why on earth are you comparing those amounts?

Your questions are all legitimate and I am sure they are all posed in some way by management when making their decisions. You have no way of knowing what lies behind the decisions they do make simply because you do not have the information available to you. That is what makes your constant carping and criticism so wearing. I am afraid it is you that are the prisoner of your own prejudices. You are quite open in believing that they are doing it all wrong so constantly try to cast everything in a negative light. You do this by misusing financial information using your so-called expertise. It is that "expertise" that I challenge - as I have in the past by demonstrating how far out of touch you are with the subject.

Where is the basis for your opinion that they are facing a different environment and they need to adopt your "cost cutting" policies. What do you know that they don't know? You have been saying this for years and they are still there - providing the service, maintaining their financial health, leading the world in lifeboat design etc. Of course their sources of income change over time. Nothing wrong in that. What is important is that they recognise it and change with it. As to your repeated nonsense about what the donors think about the way their donations are used. Well, not only are the accounts completely transparent and in the public domain, but many of the donors are public corporations or successful private businesses. Do you seriously think that firstly they don't know how the money is spent and secondly that they would donate if they thought the money was not being used wisely?

So, I am sorry, but I am afraid it is you that needs to get out of your box and recognise that the RNLI does not fit your pre-conceived model of an organisation. If you want to do something useful then recognise its context and how it fits within it rather than saying "this is what it should do" while ignoring the context. You have been told many times by people that know far more about the organisation that your assumptions about the way the organisation operates are either misplaced or in some cases totally wrong. You unwillingness to recognise this is why you are largely ignored.

I went back to look at some of our previous discussions which I might sum up by you saying "You are wrong because I say so."

Let me add a few quotes from this thread from 2015 :

caiman

After following the various RNLI threads over the years it is my honest opinion that Sybarite has got a more realistic grasp on the RNLI situation than the vast majority of the people on this forum.
My qualification for making that statement? How about 10 years as a 'brave' volunteer,25 years as a (not so brave???) employee ie.a full time sea going Station Mechanic,and now having 'resigned' from RNLI employment,a sea going volunteer once again.
If the general public knew the real truth behind the RNLI they would never put another 'penny in the box' ever again,and relying on the public's gullability is not sustainable in 2015.
Well done Sybarite-don't be bullied by the 'Flat Earth' mentality on this forum and thank you for your continued support for the Crews at the real 'front line' of the RNLI ie on the Coast.
Cheers

Erbas

I know caiman very well. he is a very good sailor, and a retired lifeboat mechanic
He taught me all I know about diesel engines
I would imagine he does not want to make too much fuss, having been intimately involved with the RNLI for such a long time
But there are few if any on this forum with more experience or inside knowledge of the RNLI

Mister Rhino
Re: RNLI job.
How many people does the RNLI kill every year?

Say you took their "excess" funds and spent it on other charitable projects within the health sector or in the developing world, how many lives could you save?
It could be argued, with only a little over-dramatic rhetoric, that the failure to spend that money elsewhere, resources being finite, will result in unnecessary deaths.
Every pound wasted by a charity is a pound that could save lives elsewhere, to bean counters, an opportunity cost.
Now some will say that there are no wasted monies within the RNLI, to them, just how much cash does the RNLI have in the reserves, do they truly need all of it?
There logically should be a distinction between admiration (and on occasion profound gratitude) for the work of the crews and a blind refusal to brook any criticism of the organisation's management, no organisation truly benefits from blind hero worship.

Just a thought on a hot night

Originally Posted by Camelia

"I am married to a chartered bean counter, work with bean counters (at board level) and spent several years in one of the Big Four. My traditional view of bean counters is based on an in-depth understanding of the profession. I even have to attend institute dinners where there are some interesting and "robust" conversations."

One of my last consulting jobs was to go into a factory and demonstrate to the engineers that they had a hidden factory. Because they didn't account correctly for scrap and rework, and they hadn't a written agreement on supplier quality their costs were something like 40% higher than they should have been. We introduced them to the notion of Six Sigma quality control where it is essential to account for all elements of cost. If you cannot identify your costs, you cannot control them; that's a basic tenet of Six Sigma. Having got them to accept this notion, we then helped them develop the notion of designing production processes for Six Sigma.

Our intervention helped them to reduce their factory costs by about $12m pa. That's a lot of beans.

That might be a useful exercise for the RNLI.

 

[Heckler]

I went back to look at some of our previous discussions which I might sum up by you saying "You are wrong because I say so."

Let me add a few quotes from this thread from 2015 :










One of my last consulting jobs was to go into a factory and demonstrate to the engineers that they had a hidden factory. Because they didn't account correctly for scrap and rework, and they hadn't a written agreement on supplier quality their costs were something like 40% higher than they should have been. We introduced them to the notion of Six Sigma quality control where it is essential to account for all elements of cost. If you cannot identify your costs, you cannot control them; that's a basic tenet of Six Sigma. Having got them to accept this notion, we then helped them develop the notion of designing production processes for Six Sigma.

Our intervention helped them to reduce their factory costs by about $12m pa. That's a lot of beans.

That might be a useful exercise for the RNLI.

Indeed although I suppose the CC would then tell them they arent spending enough. Anyway bottom line, if they keep doing things like they are and letting the children fresh out of Uni loose with their liberal left ideas then market forces will prevail, the legacies will stop and a new local charity will start to provide a lifeboat service as we are starting to see.

 

[Capt Popeye]

I wonder how many of our YBW inmates are actually volunteers for the RNLI? Or in fact any of the major charities in the UK?

The lifeboat skipper might well have done wrong. But should he have just got a reprimand? Or even a written warning? By dismissing him, the "senior management" have sent a chilling message to all their volunteers that will loose them a huge amount of goodwill that might never be recovered.

Within my own circle of family and friends, there have been volunteers for several well-known charities, some for several decades. Like Oxfam, WI, Meals On Wheels, and some hospices.

In every case, there has been a slow-but-sure shift from an organisation whose main aim was always something like "Caring For Others In Need" to something much more corporate, with a plush head office, and loads of "senior managers" being paid "competitive salaries", often £60K+

The general public, putting their cash into the collecting boxes, often have no idea how little of their donations actually pays for the "front-line" services, and how much is increasingly spent at HQ.

There's a petition to reinstate the coxswain here:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/reinstate-scarborough-rnli-coxswain-tom-clark

Oh so so very true kind Sir

We have had very similar experiences with a Charity that we both largely ran and largely self financed down ere in South Devon, along came change by way of new regulations, or so we are told. New Chief who ignored the regulars who also Self Financed and Ran various Regions, often for many years. Did her own thing and listened to some on the periphery who complained over the Illness name and other incidentals. Resulted in most Regional Groups becoming sidelined and redundant. Yea great result, only very good news is that she has reportedly 'had enough' so moving off this August t pastures new. Yea a great result.
There has been a urge in most Chatities towards securing line Managers into almost every conceieable post and then lording it over the regular Volunteers often rubbing them up the wrong way then dismissing them on some pretense or other.
Yes Charities are not what they once were anymore.

So results in u being most selective on where we offer our support and cash in future.

Might suggest that our Boating donations be far better directed towards those Independent Lifesaving ones and local Lifeguards that surely do need our monies /donations so perhaps a result will be greater spread of Private Lifeboats araound our coasts.